It's not necessary to point to nuclear waste (or safety) to dismiss nuclear. Cost is sufficient. Construction of new nuclear power plants is simply far too expensive to be a good way to contribute to CO2 emission reduction.
The real issue is that, at least in the US, nukes cost overwhelmingly more than any other energy source, take 10+ years to build with no power output in the meantime, frequently consume billions of dollars without ever being completed, and (if ever put into production) develop leaks. They just don't make sense when considering the current alternatives.
Solar and wind installations start producing power almost immediately, and can be continuously added onto while operating, with only the most minimal of site preparation.
This might seem like a sensible approach, until you realize that it eliminates, by definition, any chance for nuclear power to be cheaper than its competition. """ from: https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop
For a long time, nuclear supporters just ignored the cost issue, since they felt they were the only real non-fossil alternative. Yes, they'd be expensive, but society had no choice. In the last decade this changed. Renewables are now far cheaper on a levelized basis, cheap enough that even with the cost of dealing with intermittency they are likely to come out cheaper than nuclear.
This is why so much new capacity in the world (and in the US) is renewables. It's not because of green mind control, it's because of brute economics. Nuclear is in dire shape competitively, in comparison.
But what are the costs of unstable supply and behavior of whole grid?